Seriously their legislative agenda consists of voting down anything that Biden proposes to help the country and vote in favor for purely symbolic bills that will die in the senate. Investigating Biden, Garland, and the Jan 6th Committee is about all they can do that will make it into the papers, at least until the budget expires on October first and they can make a big scene by shutting down the government.
To me, the interesting part is: what if he doesn’t even go that far? You say you can imagine him making unspecific promises; can you imagine him just making clear that Joe Biden is his father, and nothing else, at which point, hey, folks talking with him maybe figure that he’d ask his dad to help out if any hassles come up, but that’s just them inferring?
Look, they’re just carrying-over the tradition from the prior administration, whose north star was simply going down the list of things Obama got done, and undoing them. They have no other ideas or agenda.
Oh sure. The whole thing could be %100 complete unadulterated bullshit from top to bottom. I was just laying out the worst case scenario that would still fit their complete lack of ability to point to any specific thing that J. Biden was supposed to have done (other than the Ukraine red herring), and match my impression of the integrity people involved.
Not to hijack this, but the hall-of-mirrors effect is really starting to intrigue me: obviously the worst-case scenario, the one that motivated conspiracy theorists would love to pin on Joe Biden, would be Joe saying “hire my son, and I’ll give you preferential treatment.” And a step down from that would be Hunter saying “hire me, and my dad will give you preferential treatment.” And, like I was saying, a step down from that would be a would-be employer figuring — on his own initiative — “if we hire Joe Biden’s kid, then Joe will give us preferential treatment.”
But it only just now dawned on me that, a step down from THAT would be a would-be employer saying “hey, if we hire Joe Biden’s kid, then people will figure that Joe Biden will give us preferential treatment.” Like, a corporation could hire him, and — without actually believing it! — showcase him as a selling point to someone they could do business with: we’ll put our top guy on this; and we’ll also put Joe Biden’s kid on this, and, heh, you know what that means, with regard to preferential treatment.
And, for that matter, a step down from that would be a shift from said corporation implying it to said prospect inferring — all on his own — that oh, heh, I know what it means for them to put their top guy, and Joe Biden’s kid, on this!
Juat how far down the line could you plausibly take this?
I think that what you are outlining here is exactly the way that influence peddling via connections and family names normally works. Its a combination of convincing the person in power to give a nudge here and there plus the ability to make others think that the person in power will do so. Pretty much every congress critter who has a family member with any ambition is going to be guilty of this kind of thing.
The purpose of the “Do you know who I am!” threat is to intimidate people into giving you what you want without actually having to carry your implied but unspecified threat.
This is from 2010:
So, maybe 3 - 5 percent. I think that the percent with at least one “family member with any ambition” is a lot more.
I don’t blame Joe Biden. It’s bad luck that his surviving son is difficult in multiple ways. Bad luck for the President, and, to a small but definite extent, bad luck for those who hope the president will be re-elected.
That’s just lobbyists. Hunter Biden isn’t a lobbyist. What if you include board members, heads of orginizations, etc. I bet the numbers increase substantially.
Maybe not every member, but probably a very significant proportion if not majority.
If anywhere close to a majority, that’s a significant problem. I’m not sure exactly what to do about it beyond that the press should ride it harder.
Most politicians’ children try hard to do nothing to embarrass their famous parent. Some have historically made great sacrifices in that direction, including volunteering for dangerous military duties in wartime. And I doubt it has to much to do with if the politician was an ideal parent.
I’m not saying that these family members did anything to embarrass them or made major ethics violations, I’m just saying that they probably named dropped their famous family members to get ahead, with those who heard the name thinking that helping them or putting them in charge of their organization would curry favor, or at least give others the impression that favor could be curried.
In my value system, that’s a major ethics violation right there.
They were born on third base, should recognize that, and not be trying to steal home. And I think most of them do recognize it, and behave accordingly.
Sometimes they do have legitimate areas of expertise. I think Chelsea Clinton is on some boards, but it just isn’t like the Hunter situation.
Chelsea Clinton is an excellent example of the sort of thing I’m talking about. I don’t have anything against her, and I’m sure that she is good at what she does, and is ethical in all she does
but according to wikipedia,
Clinton has worked for McKinsey & Company, Avenue Capital Group, and New York University and serves on several boards, including those of the School of American Ballet, Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative, Common Sense Media, Weill Cornell Medical College, Expedia Group, and IAC/InterActiveCorp.
So she is on the board of 7 organizations, now the Clinton foundation ones count because its natural that they would choose a Clinton to be on the board of those, but I doubt that if she were just somebody off the street with her skill set she would be on the board of the other 5 organizations.
At this point though we are getting a bit off from the Hunter investigation (though maybe not too far since the extent to which what Hunter did is SOP is important) but we should probably wrap up the hijack before Aspenglow hits our knuckles with a ruler.
Nm wrong thread
< Peers over half glasses while patting her bun back into place and surreptitiously hoisting up her support hose… >
Making a comparison with Chelsea Clinton for the purpose of demonstrating like-for-like behaviors with Hunter Biden is fine. A hijack would be if you and others started arguing about Chelsea Clinton.
Hope this clarifies. 
I did see, in another forum, a staunch Republican making a song and dance about [the FBI report released by Senator Grassley]https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/fd_1023_obtained_by_senator_grassley_-_biden.pdf)
I hadn’t been following the ins and outs of this, but I did read that document through. It just appears to be hearsay evidence of a quite possibly inventive boaster boasting about an unspecified and un-evidenced deal for the Bidens to “protect” (how, exactly?) Burisma - but also that HB is so stupid that they need the source’s participation as well.
And that’s it?
I find it sad and troubling that so many people live in a daily world of disinformation as far as state and reality of there country’s political climate, what makes it worse is so many of the same people do not believe the planet is warming due to the rising greenhouse gases. There are things that happen in life that don’t go the way one would like. Facts and evidence you just can’t close your eyes and say it’s not there or click your heels and it will go away….It’s truth sets one free, not lies or excuses ….Nothing is learned and more lies will come down the road.
It appears Mr Trump believes never tell the truth when a lie will save you!
Chelsea Clinton is actually a perfect example of why companies want people like her on their boards. She grew up in the White House, spent 8 years there. After Bill was out of office, Hillary was in the Senate for many more years, and then ran for President herself. And Chelsea was there for all of it. She’s got a more intimate view of how that whole system works than almost anyone, and probably better than some actual current office holders.
Plus, all the people who worked around her parents know who she is. If she calls them, they’re far more likely to answer, as compared to even a regular lobbyist type, let alone a private citizen. And getting office holders to listen to you at all is the first step in doing anything political.
That’s all valuable, even if she never once asks her parents to pick up a phone on her behalf. And it would be valuable to anyone who had lived her life. It always has been valuable, and always will be valuable, for as long as we have human beings being in charge of our society.
How much of such experience does Hunter have compared to Chelsea? Probably less, and he squandered a lot of it during his drugs&hookers phase, but he still has some.
And trumps kids didnt do that? Or look at GWBjr, who parlayed that into the White House.
Or Carters Brother?
This happens, and it is not illegal.
Yeah, I know; that’s my point. That, by the time you get to the third scenario or the fourth or whatever, they aren’t doing anything illegal, and aren’t really doing anything at all: other people are figuring, on their own initiative, that this or that result will ensue; only no such deal is struck, or arrangement made, or whatever.
I’m saying that, oh, let’s say, A figures that B employed C to get preferential treatment from D — in a situation where, no, D isn’t actually a party to anything of the sort, and neither is C, and neither is B: no specific promises were made, and no non-specific promises were made — and if A figures incorrectly anyway, well, that’s hardly D’s problem, or C’s.
And of course, this is why there’s the old adage, “Caesar’s wife must be above reproach.” Even third or fourth hand shenanigans can reflect badly on the person in power, even if they didn’t have anything to do with it. This has always been a problem.